Subject:
|
Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:44:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
479 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Just a drive by participant here in this particular thread, more's the pity as
> it has been interesting and I wish I had more time....
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
>
> > Understand your enemy and you learn how to defeat him.
> >
> > Terrorist violence cannot be defeated by stricter security (it can be reduced,
> > it might get worse)
> >
> > Terrorist violence can be defeated (over the long term) by removing or
> > ameliorating the circumstances which create the support base
>
> I agree with this but fear that in some cases (that of the radical fanatic who
> is convinced that his god is telling him to kill nonbelievers) removing
> circumstances means changing the religion itself, doesn't it?
It does.
There are different kinds of religions.
Changing a popular or materially well resourced religion is no small thing. But
even Christianity got over this when essentially left to its own devices. Mind
you, in the hundreds of years it took Christianity, thousands if not millions of
people suffered through the process. It would be good to address the issue more
quickly in other faiths, but it would be the height of ignorance and arrogance
to complain about it taking a considerable time.
What we can do in the medium term is demonstrate time and again that this
(killing unbelievers) is unnecessary, unsuccessful and ultimately
counterproductive, by demonstrating the respectful and positive contribution
non-believers can make. It also involves engaging with the reading of the books
of the religion in question, the tenets of the faith, and in appealing to its
higher thoughts, and on its own terms. This probably assumes an opportunity to
appeal to a shared sense of the capacities and aspirations of the human spirit,
but in my experience, all the major religions share this.
Much of the wider energy and enthusiasm of the active radical fanatics (often
smaller slices of larger religions) still comes from being able to point to a
sense of shared injustice and inequity, and reasonably suggesting that killing
unbelievers will right the wrong and re-open doors to opportunity. This we can
work to reduce. Without this sense, there is no wide support base, and a
religious fanatic is only that - a lonely shrill voice yelling and screaming,
but without the resources to actually make much of a difference.
The increasingly egalitarian access to public material via the internet and
satellite delivered communications can only promote the process.
And it needs to be carried out on a basis of mutual respect, even if not all the
other parties demonstrate that respect. In this, it is a question of who and
how we choose to be (not who and how others choose to be).
> And in some cases the driving force is just plain venality/insanity of
> the individual.
Yup. There are always wackos about, there always have been, and recent history
only reminds us that these can come from within as well as without. Obviously
we have to find them and catch them embarked on their terrible work (but still
subject to our criminal and political law). And if their actions warrant
imprisonment, we should imprison them. And if your local law says they should
be put to death, then so they should. But under the law, and with all the
safeguards local law provides.
Nothing in the entire thread has suggested we do not need to have a robust and
vigilant approach to security. And a bonafide increasing threat needs to be met
with more vigilance. But this security work is only the balm for the symptom,
not the cure of the cause.
> Fortunately most terrorism isn't driven by either of those
Absolutely right.
To assume that its all about zealots and wackos is stupidity of a mindnumbingly,
toe-curlingly high order. To inflame the discussion with closed minded
generalisations just puts the necessary engagement back, and a stable resolution
further off.
It was the simplistic suggestion that terrorists hate freedom, with the
fundamental lack of understanding and respect that this reflects, that started
us off.
We need to do more about this than just hunt and kill.
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| Just a drive by participant here in this particular thread, more's the pity as it has been interesting and I wish I had more time.... (...) I agree with this but fear that in some cases (that of the radical fanatic who is convinced that his god is (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
